Transcript Library induction moves from stage to screen…

LIBRARY INDUCTION MOVES
FROM STAGE TO SCREEN:
Adapting our performance for smarter teaching delivery
Damian J. J. Farnell (School of Dentistry), Erica Swain (University Library
Service), Alison L. Weightman (University Library Service), CARDIFF
UNIVERSITY
Presenter: Erica Swain
Email: [email protected]
CARDIFF UNIVERSITY SYSTEMATIC
REVIEW…
Weightman, A. L., Morris, D., Strange, H., Hallam, G. and Farnell, D. J. J.
(2016). A Systematic Review of Information Literacy Programs for Taught
Students in Universities: Online and Face-to-face Methods lead to
Equivalent Outcomes (Unpublished).
‘Findings from 26 studies confirmed that there is no apparent
difference between the two formats in terms of student skills
development and suggested that both methods of delivery are
acceptable to students.’
CREATING THE ONLINE INDUCTION
• Research to inform content
• Consulted subject librarians
• Surveyed students – what do you wish you had known as a new 1st year?
• Practicalities
• Emaze free software
• Time-consuming, but not too
technical
• Delivery
• Via VLE (optional completion
monitoring and assessment of quiz)
• Direct link to Emaze URL
http://tinyurl.com/jkryfmd
THE EVALUATION PROCESS
• Randomised controlled trial
• Dental School Year 1 library induction in Week 1
• Pre-induction test of attitudes / knowledge
• Then split into two randomized groups
• Group 1: face-to-face induction
• Group 2: online induction
• Post-induction test of attitudes / knowledge 5 days later
• Data collected on paper forms and input into Bristol Online Surveys for export
to SPSS for analysis
THE PREAND POSTTESTS
1. Attitudes
2. Knowledge
…Repeated in posttest
PARTICIPATION
• 58 Year 1 Dentistry students completed the pre-test.
Of these:
• 32 then received a face-to-face library induction
• 26 received an online library induction
• 72 students attended the follow-up event 5 days later. All filled in the posttest.
Of these, 60 claimed to have attended the induction!
• 33 face-to-face
• 27 online
FACE-TOFACE
GROUP
Yellow =
statistically
significant
improvement
Red = strong
statistically
significant
improvement
ONLINE
GROUP
Yellow =
statistically
significant
improvement
Red = strong
statistically
significant
improvement
Yellow = statistically
significant improvement
Red = strong statistically
significant improvement
Face-to-face
COMPARISON: FACE-TO-FACE VS
ONLINE
Online
CONCLUSIONS
• General improvement in both groups, pre- to post-training
• Knowledge questions:
• Online learning & face-to-face have similar outcomes
• Agreement with results of systematic review
• Attitudes questions:
• Face-to-face: increased preference pre- to post- to learn from a librarian
• Online: decreased preference pre- to post- to learn from a librarian
…Learning type might reinforce student preference for that mode of learning?
RECOMMENDATIONS
For a similar evaluation in future:
• Assign ID number to each student for duration of experiment and carry out a
“paired” statistical analysis?
• link individuals’ pre- and post-test results
• weed out any invalid responses
• more complex; requires formal consent from participants
• Ask if participants have studied before at Cardiff or are completely new:
returning students may measure less improvement pre- to post-test.
• Test again later in the year to gauge retention? (But issue of other factors
affecting student performance by that stage.)
FUTURE PLANS
• Roll out online induction further
• Extend to other relatively ‘generic’ and oft-repeated training, e.g. EndNote
(reference management software)
• Performance by students is comparable between the two formats but is not
brilliant overall. Reinforcement needed?
• Journal article in preparation
THANK YOU
Any questions?
Erica Swain, Cardiff University
[email protected]